GUNA ALIAS GUNASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in custody, by name, Guna alias Gunasekaran, in Crime No. 245 of 1995 of Kullanchavadi Police Station in South, Arcot Vallalar District, for the offences underSections 147, 148, 341 and 302 Indian Penal Code, has preferred this revision, canvassing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Cuddalore, in Crl. M. P. No. 2690 of 1995 on 31-8-1995, declining to enlarge the petitioner on bail which was sought for on the ground of failure to file the charge sheet or final report within 90 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences, as it is a failure of mandatory functioning.

(2.) The petitioner-accused, among the other accused, was admittedly arrested by the respondent-police for the abovesaid alleged offences on 29-5-1995 and produced to judicial custody on the next day itself. Since the case registered against the petitioner and others was under investigation, the final report as required by the procedural law was not filed into the Court by the respondent-police which resulted in the petitioner filing Crl. M. P. No. 2690 of 1997 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. No. 3, Cuddalore, inviting the passing of the impugned order after contest. After having considered the merits of the case by hearing both the parties and after having placed reliance upon a decision held in Sankar alias Gourisankar v. State, 1991 Mad LW (Cri 202 : (1991 Cri LJ 1745), learned Magistrate declined to allow the petition by passing the following order :"

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for and on behalf of the revision petitioner who would contend very streneously that the remedy of bail is provided under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to an accused-person when the charge sheet has not been filed within 90 days in the cases in which warrant procedure is adopted and the remanding of the petitioner-accused for further period is violative of the legislative command inbuilt under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore, learned Magistrate has clearly fallen into an error while passing the impugned order by not adopting the said legal aspects and the refusal to grant bail to the petitioner is against the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so, the impugned order lacks every legality and propriety.